I was at Toni's blog and found this. Westgard has already weighed in on it. I am sorry that Don lost because that means events like like this will never get fully aired and assessed.
I don't trust Joe Moore. I simply do not trust any politician who stoops to blatant cheating to win. That report is evidence of blatant cheating and evidently he will not be called out on it. He'll do it again the next time around, as sure as the sun rises in the east. He may be my alderman and I have to work with him, but that doesn't mean I have to trust him, let alone respect a cheater.
I intend to attend the V.O.T.E.R. event on July 28, for no other reason than to find out for myself what V.O.T.E.R's plans are in view of the dismissal and what their strategy is for ensuring accountability from our elected officials. I'll decide about signing on after I hear what they have to say.
In the meantime, as the alderman's current term progresses I'll be very curious how his apologists spin his actions and lack of same. I have a long memory and lots of webspace.
10 comments:
now I'm realy confused. The email I got didn't read this way at all!
Unless I'm mistaken (and I very well could be), Dismissed with prejudice means that he can re-file his 'complaint', just that in it's current form, the judge can not hear it.
Usually some kind of technicallity, so it's not over yet.
I haven't received any email, although I did get updates on the request for info. Soooo.....I don't know for sure what dismissed with prejudice means but I have never assumed that it was a good thing. In any case, Don's lawsuit was tossed and he has to come up with a new basis to be heard. So I am very curious as to what he will do.
I believe that Hilary is correct.
Found this on Wikipedia:
In law, the phrase without prejudice means that a claim, lawsuit, or proceeding has been brought to a temporary end but that no legal rights or privileges have been determined, waived, or lost by the result.
By contrast with prejudice means that a party's legal rights have in fact been determined and lost.
However, this does not prevent an appeal or a trial de novo if ordered by a higher court.
So..I was mistaken, having confused the two. My apologies.
So he can appeal, and he has to win to continue at all.
It might be nice if Don actually cited one or two cases of true fruad. That's one reason his case was dismissed. Seems like he might have actually publicized all this "fraud" if it truly occurred.
But it didn't.
So what was this?
Maybe Don should have spent some time in the nursing homes mimicking Joe's tactics. If it's OK for Joe, it must be OK for everyone. Right?
(1) Last Friday Judge Hayes ruled in favor of the alderman's motion to dismiss the Gordon challenge to the election.
(2) Don Gordon plans to exercise his right to offer for consideration by the judge the evidence collected in recent weeks, and there is a deadline - 30 days to present motions regarding this.
(3) The election challenge court case will be over if Gordon does not present these motions to the judge by the 30-day deadline.
Post a Comment